first vs. second generation e- cigarettes: predictors of choice and effects on tobacco craving and...
Post on 17-Dec-2015
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
First vs. Second Generation E-Cigarettes: Predictors of choice and effects on tobacco craving and withdrawal symptoms
Dr. Lynne DawkinsDrugs and Addictive Behaviours Research Group (DABRG), School of Psychology
http://www.uel.ac.uk/psychology/research/drugs
Disclosures
Lynne Dawkins has previously undertaken research for e-cigarette companies, received products for research purposes and funding
for speaking at research conferences
Talk Overview
• E-cigarettes – an introduction• Existing findings from the e-cig and smoking
literature• Studies 1-3
– Exploring effects of visual appearance on urge to smoke, withdrawal symptoms…
…and choice– Comparing a 1st vs. 2nd generation device
• A few more findings• Conclusions and future directions
First Generation E-cigarettes
Second Generation E-cigarettes
Third Generation E-cigarettes (‘mods’)
Effects on Urge to Smoke / withdrawal symptoms
• E-cig (1st gen) can reduce urge to smoke & withdrawal symptoms in deprived smokers but not as effectively as tobacco cigarette (Bullen et al., 2010; Vansickel et al., 2010)
• Lower urge to smoke & withdrawal symptoms after using nicotine vs. placebo (2nd gen) E-cig (Dawkins, Turner & Crowe, 2013).
Placebo & Gender Effects
• Placebo (0mg/ml) e-cig (1st gen) also associated with decline in urge to smoke after 5 mins and..
• Further reduction in urge to smoke with nicotine e-cig after 20 mins only in males (Dawkins et al., 2012)
• Survey of e-cig users: Females more likely to use 1st gen cigalikes. Males more likely to use 2nd gen devices (Dawkins et al., 2013)
Nicotine vs. non-nicotine aspects of smoking
• Smokers report enjoying sensory and tactile aspects of smoking (Parrott & Craig, 1995)
• And prefer smoking a de-nic cigarette over intravenous nicotine (Rose et al., 2010)
• De-nic smoking can alleviate urge to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms (Barrett, 2010; Perkins et al., 2010)
• Is it important for e-cigs to look like cigarettes? If so, for whom?
Study 1: Is Visual Appearance Important?
• 63 abstinent smokers allocated to red or white e-cig
• Current e-cig users excluded• 35% had used at least once in past• Ten 3s puffs with 30s IPI (Vansickel et
al., 2010)
• Rated urge to smoke and withdrawal symptoms before and (10 mins) after use (MPSS, West & Hajek, 2004)
Effects of visual appearance on urge to smoke
Pre Post1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Smokers with prior e-cig use (N=22)
WhiteRed
Urg
e to
Sm
oke
Pre Post1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
E-cig naive smokers (N-41)
WhiteRed
Urg
e to
Sm
oke
Sig main effect Time: F(1,59) = 41.65, p<0.0001Sig Time x Condition x prior use interaction: F (1,59) =4.36, p<0.05
Effects of visual appearance on withdrawal symptoms
Pre post5
7
9
11
13
15
17
Smokers with prior e-cig use (N=22)
whitered
MPS
S sc
ore
pre post7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
E-cig naive smokers (N=41)
whitered
MPS
S sc
ore
Sig main effect Time: F(1,59) = 73.53, p<0.0001Sig Time x Condition interaction: F (1,59) =9.13, p<0.01No interaction with prior use
Study 1 summary
• It is important for an e-cigarette to look like a cigarette for alleviation of urge to smoke and withdrawal symptoms especially for naïve users…
• BUT only looked at short term effects
Study 2: Importance of visual appearance on e-cigarette choice
• 100 abstinent smokers (current e-cig users excluded)
• 97% heard of e-cigs; 57% used at least once in the past
• Asked to choose between 1st and 2nd generation e-cigarette
• Predictors of choice: gender, prior e-cig use, age, tobacco dependence (FTND).
E-cigarette Choice
Device chosen N
1st generation (‘cigalike’) 49
2nd generation (‘pen-like)’ 51
Resem
bles a
cig
Does n
ot res
emble
a cig
Stylis
h0
102030405060708090
100
Reasons given for e-cigarette choice
CigalikePenlike
%ag
e re
spon
dent
s
No overall preference for 1st or 2nd generation device.
Predictors of E-cigarette choice
Multiple predictor hierarchical logistic regression
No significant predictors of e-cig choice
Predictor B (SE) Odds ratio p
Constant 1.65 (1.72) 5.21 0.34
Age -.02 (.03) 0.98 0.45
Gender -0.36 (0.43) 0.70 0.39
Prior e-cig use -0.15 (0.48) 0.86 0.75
FTND -0.09 (0.13) 0.91 0.49
Study 3: 1st vs. 2nd generation e-cigarettes: Subjective Effects
• 70% of regular e-cigarette users use 2nd generation devices (Dawkins et al., 2013)
• 100% of smokers who had successfully quit used 2nd (91%) or 3rd (9%) generation devices (Farsalinos et al., 2013)
• 100 abstinent smokers randomly allocated to 1st or 2nd generation device
• Ten 3s puffs with 30s IPI
• Rated urge to smoke and withdrawal symptoms before and (10 mins) after use (MPSS, West & Hajek, 2004)
• Rated satisfaction and hit after use
Study 3: 1st vs. 2nd generation e-cigarettes: Subjective Effects
Effects of device type on urge to smoke:
Pre post0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
E-cig naive smokers (N=43)
1st gen2nd gen
urge
to
smok
epre post
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
smokers with prior e-cig use (N=57)
1st gen2nd gen
Urg
e to
sm
oke
scor
e
Sig main effect TIME: F(1,95)=73.58, p<0.0001No sig interactions with device type or prior use: F(1,95)<1, ns)
Effects of device type on withdrawal symptoms
pre post2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Smokers with prior e-cig use (N=57)
1st gen2nd gen
MPS
S sc
ore
pre post2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
E-cig naive smokers (N=43)
1st gen2nd gen
MPS
S
Sig main effect TIME: F(1,92)=29.21, p<0.0001No sig interactions with device type or prior use: F(1,95)<1, ns)
Effects of device on satisfaction & hitHow satisfying did you find the e-cigarette?
Not at all (0); Fairly (1); Very (2)
Did you feel a ‘hit’ from the e-cigarette?
No (0); Partly (1);Yes (2)
1st gen 2nd gen0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Satisfaction
naive usersused before
1st gen 2nd gen0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Hit
naive usersused before
Main effect of device type on satisfaction: F(1,95)=10.68, P<0.01. No sig effect of device on hit. No sig interactions (All Fs <1.5, ns).
Studies 2 & 3: Summary of findings
• Equal numbers of participants selected 1st & 2nd generation e-cig types
• Gender, prior use, age & dependence did not predict choice
• 1st and 2nd generation types were equally effective at alleviating urge to smoke and withdrawal symptoms
• 2nd generation device associated with higher levels of ‘satisfaction’
1st vs. 3rd generation devices (Farsalinos et al., 2014)
• 23 experienced e-cig users used a 1st gen cartomiser and 3rd generation device
• In 3rd generation condition:• ‘Craving to vape’ lower (p<0.001)
• Satisfaction and hit higher (p<0.01)
• Plasma nicotine levels higher at all time points (p<0.001)
Differences between studies
• 2nd vs. 3rd generation device used• The 1st generation disposable device
shown to produce relatively high levels of nicotine released to vapour (Goniewicz, Hajek & McRobbie, 2014)
• Nicotine delivery vs. visual appearance• Naive vs. experienced e-cig users
Conclusions
• Visual appearance may be important in early stages of abstinence for short term alleviation of urge to smoke and withdrawal symptoms...
• ...Particularly for e-cig naive smokers
• E-cig choice reflects individual preference and none of the variables here predicted 1st vs. 2nd generation choice.
• 1st generation devices can be as effective as 2nd for alleviation of urge to smoke & withdrawal symptoms
• But cannot generalise to other types and 3rd generation devices may be superior.
Further Questions & Future Directions
• Are 3rd generation devices more effective than 2nd?
• Differences between 1st generation devices• Is visual appearance important over the
longer term?• What other non-nicotine factors are
important?
Acknowledgements
• Catherine Kimber• Yaso Puwanesarasa• Gina Christoforou• Naomi Olumegbon• E-Lites• Totally Wicked
top related